What? Tiger Woods lost?!! (But it’s not that big of a deal)

We are not used to this, I know. Tiger Woods had won five consecutive tournaments, including two majors, heading into the HSBC World Match Play Championship in England.
Then this morning Woods went out in a 36-hole first-round match against Shaun Micheel, got behind and eventually lost 4-and-3, which is a match-play wipeout.
But this was sort of expected: Tiger hasn’t been a very good match player as a pro, and that 7-11-2 record in Ryder Cup play just screams for attention.
Still, unless you’re talking Ryder Cup, the loss today wasn’t very significant in Tiger History, and here’s why:

* First off, the PGA Tour announced before the HSBC teed off that whatever Tiger did this week could neither add to or stop his official win streak. I don’t think it matters much because I doubt Tiger will win a many (or any) more official events in a row now than we’re at the end of the season.
Still, it’s even less significant because Woods almost never plays in the HSBC (he plays in the World Match Play event early in the year in Southern California) and is only doing so this year to get his body clock in tune for next week’s Ryder Cup at K Club in Ireland.
Woods just doesn’t care about this one too much and he doesn’t tend to dominate the events he doesn’t have great passion for.
* Secondly, there is that nagging question: Why doesn’t Woods dominate in match play, where you’d think his charismatic intimidation would be in full force, like he does in normal stroke play?
The tennis player James Blake made an intriguing point about Tiger vs. Roger Federer: Blake said that Federer’s achievements in tennis are greater because Federer wins the equivalent of seven matches in a row to win a major–against varying styles, on different days–while Tiger has struggled in that format as a pro.
But Woods was an all-time great match player as an amateur, which is strictly a match-play competition at the highest levels. Woods won three U.S. Junior Amateur titles and three U.S. Amateurs, running up a record 18 consecutive match victories on the way.
Which means: If Tiger’s pro career was defined by match play, and not stroke play, he would dominate that just as thoroughly as he has dominated major championships the other way. He’s programmed to beat the field and the course over four grueling rounds, not just 18 or 36 holes vs. one guy. If he was being measured for history by match play, he’d re-program himself for that.
But he’s not.
It’d be like judging Federer by one or two sets, separately, from everything else. I know he’s great, but he does lose sets every now and again. He lost one to Blake, I believe.
Federer wins majors by winning three sets before his opponent does, one match at a time. That’s how he’s measured. You can’t switch it up based on a different sport, for him or his buddy Tiger.
* This does raise worries about the U.S. team next weekend vs. Europe, and there were already major worries after the 2004 debacle.
Jim Furyk added to the concern by also losing today, and he made it worse because he lost to European Ryder Cup-er Robert Karlsson, hardly a Europe tentpole player.
Furyk’s the U.S. team’s No. 3 stud (behind TW and Mickelson) and he’s being counted on to join with Tiger for a super team for the maximum four matches. Now? Who knows?
I do think it’s fair to judge these guys, in part, on their Ryder Cup careers, because they gear up for it, they care about it, and Woods has obviously under-performed in it.
But the last time he was embarrassed, last June when he missed the cut at the U.S. Open, this is how Woods responded in his next six tournaments: second-first-first-first-first-first.
He’ll do fine at the K Club. I don’t think the U.S. will beat Europe. But I think Tiger will accept the mantle of leadership this time, and he will win his share.
The U.S.–and the golf world–should worry about the other guys.